Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 135 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of signboards - Demand and penalty - Manufacture of glow signs - Natural justice - HELD THAT:-The Commissioner rightly observed that these different ways of supply of the finished goods did not make a difference to the issue. What the appellants appear to be doing is that they make one part of the glow sign and out source other part/parts and supply all the parts after fitting them. The Commissioner relied upon Narne Tuleman [1988 (9) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT] as the situation and the facts are identical. An issue was also made on the valuation. It was argued that the Commissioner arrived at the revised value behind the appellants back. This does not appear to be so. The appellant raised disputes in regard to valuation before the Commissioner during the course of hearing. To verify the veracity of the issues raised, the Commissioner asked the investigating Officers to re-scrutinize the figures mentioned in the various annexures to the show cause notice. On the basis of such scrutiny the Commissioner quantified the demand. The appellants' claim that the Commissioner did some thing behind their back is not correct. The appellants' attempt to raise fresh issues on valuation are rejected. The appellant argued that extended period of limitation is not invocable. We do not see why not. The appellant was receiving orders for glow signs and was supplying the same. He kept this fact to himself. He never disclosed to the Department that he was either installing the glow signs himself or was supplying fully manufactured glow signs. The plea of bona fide belief is neither here nor there. A blind belief that what one is doing is right does not make it a bona fide belief. The Commissioner imposed an equal amount of penalty u/s 11A. It was pleaded that this was not a case where a maximum penalty should have been imposed. We are inclined to accept this plea and accordingly pass the following order - Demand for duty is confirmed. Extended period is invocable. Penalty is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Subject to the above modification the order of the Commissioner is upheld. The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
|